Sunday, March 11, 2012

Typical Cultists from TM

Here we see those that defend Robin by attacking his dead family. Generally, Stephen is seldom a target but as the following shows all of the deceased children and their mother are fair game in 'protecting' the reputation of Robin.

The debate on TM is far past its used-by date as the following shows. 'Evidence' is plucked from the air in order to defend Robin. What is in fact happening on TM, because they continue to allow this type of untruthful material to be published, is that on-line harassment of David Bain continues. The debate has gone into the realms of fantasy for Robin's supporters, most of whom were ill informed as to the case from the outset. I believe it is important for any message board (or it's equivalent the papers) to publish carefully the truth, and strike a balance between conflicting views or evidence. Van Beynan has led The Press into the role of persecutor because his selective writings on the Bain case to this point have left out important features of why David was acquitted, the same reasons that make it likely that he will receive compensation.

In terms of the general responsibilities of publishers it is lost for the moment that any publisher that publishes or allows to be published material which is substantially wrong or imbalanced, and if that material, has the effect of  persecuting a individual, group, race or culture then the publisher is liable under the Law. We may yet see a challenge against either or both The Press or Trade Me on that. The Press for example because it has allowed Van Beynan free rein even apparently supported his Jury stalking, because they never sacked him on the evidence of it. Trade Me on the other hand, are not only being sued for what they've published on the Bain case, but they have also relied on a unrealistic model to control a 'contentious subject' in such a way that they've realistically had no control or thought about the overall implications of allowing, for example, Bain, Karam and even the Jury and lawyers  to have their privacy and reputations impinged by material they haven't satisfied themselves that were not lies, or intended not only to be defamatory, but to harass and destroy reputations and lives

I think it is likely that TM will soon appreciate this position and remedy it. As for The Press, well I don't know, perhaps public opinion, The Press Council or even litigation may assist them into line. In the meantime it is interesting to note the 'feeder.' The 'feeder' is largely one man, the reporter Van Beynan, published in The Press, then republished on the hate-sites, and directly from the hate-sites and at times the press onto TM and other boards. He says fingerprints in blood and that's what it becomes, even after the evidence is disproved, and even when the person who gave the evidence is exposed, Van Beynan remains largely silent, as he has done on so much of the forensic proof against Robin Bain. Accidental, I don't think so, even if considered by sheer volume. Deliberate? without doubt.

In the meantime we see the product of feeding in the following:

  • Poor man, that would make me feel down too. He never was clinically diagnosed with depression and his school said he was good with the children and they all liked him and hadnt seen any sign of clinical depression.
    The depression is another red herring for this poor slaughtered man, not content with all of this gossip, theories and innuendo's, the blame has been squarely placed on his shoulders by a few people not least the loving son. Disgraceful court case, disgraceful behaviour from the jury and Davids camp all in the name of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    Edited by phae at 4:48 pm, Sun 11 Mar
    phae (39 )  4:47 pm, Sun 11 Mar #125
  • As above except that was not mum pushing David away and planning to go off with Stephen instead?
    mercury14 (199 )  5:05 pm, Sun 11 Mar #126

1 comment:

  1. Tipping, Glazebrook, and Anderson decided that fingerprint evidence was conclusive, but it never would have been conclusive to me, even if I'd seen 'fingerprints in blood' with my own eyes.
    So I decided in 1995 that there must be an innocent explanation.
    The innocent explanation is that no forensics evidence in any investigation ever can be trusted.
    Motive and 'opportunity'(in the worst sense of that word) also were missing, except for Robin.